AJ Bell is generally cheaper for both fund and share/ETF holdings, especially below £100k. Hargreaves Lansdown offers stronger research, customer service and platform polish at a premium. For portfolios above £250k holding mainly ETFs, the difference narrows to a few basis points. There is no single “winner” — the right answer depends on your portfolio composition and how much you value premium service.
Headline fees compared (Stocks & Shares ISA, 2026/27)
| Charge | Hargreaves Lansdown | AJ Bell |
|---|---|---|
| Platform fee on funds | 0.45% (up to £250k); 0.25% (£250k-£1m); 0.10% (£1m-£2m); 0% (above £2m) | 0.25% (up to £250k); 0.10% (£250k-£500k); 0.05% (above £500k) |
| Platform fee on shares/ETFs/ITs | 0.45% (capped at £45/yr) | 0.25% (capped at £42/yr) |
| Share/ETF dealing | £11.95 per trade (£5.95 for regular savings) | £5.00 per trade (£1.50 for regular savings) |
| Fund dealing | Free | Free |
| FX fee | 1.00% (under £5k), down to 0.25% (above £20k) | 1.00% (under £10k), down to 0.50% (above £20k) |
| Exit / transfer-out fee | £0 (free) | £0 (free) |
| Minimum lump sum | £100 | £500 |
| Regular savings minimum | £25/month | £25/month |
On a £20,000 ISA holding funds, you'd pay £90/yr at HL vs £50/yr at AJ Bell. On the same £20k held in a single ETF, you'd pay £45/yr at HL vs £42/yr at AJ Bell — the cap basically neutralises the gap for ETF-only portfolios.
Cost scenarios — what you actually pay
| Portfolio | HL annual cost | AJ Bell annual cost | Saving with AJ Bell |
|---|---|---|---|
| £10k of ETFs, 4 trades/yr | £45 + £48 = £93 | £25 + £20 = £45 | £48/yr |
| £50k of funds, no dealing | £225 | £125 | £100/yr |
| £100k of funds, no dealing | £450 | £250 | £200/yr |
| £500k of mixed funds + ETFs (50/50), 6 trades/yr | £45 (ETF cap) + £1,125 (funds at 0.45%) + £72 dealing = £1,242 | £42 (ETF cap) + £625 (funds at 0.25%) + £30 dealing = £697 | £545/yr |
| £1m+ ETF-only portfolio, 12 trades/yr | £45 (ETF cap) + £143 dealing = £188 | £42 (ETF cap) + £60 dealing = £102 | £86/yr |
The cost gap is widest for fund-heavy portfolios under £250k. AJ Bell wins decisively in that band. For pure ETF investors using regular savings plans (£1.50/trade at AJ Bell, £5.95 at HL), the gap is more modest but still favours AJ Bell.
Where HL still wins
- Research and analysis. HL employs more analysts than AJ Bell, publishes weekly market commentary, daily fund reviews, and the well-regarded HL Five Wealth Shortlist. AJ Bell publishes weekly content but at lower volume.
- Customer service. HL routinely tops UK investment-platform service surveys (Investors’ Chronicle, Boring Money). Phone wait times average under 2 minutes vs 5-7 minutes at AJ Bell during 2025 surveys. Both have UK call centres.
- App and website polish. HL’s app is consistently rated more usable. AJ Bell’s app was rebuilt in 2024 and is now competitive but still slightly behind on power-user features.
- Larger fund universe. HL offers ~3,500 funds vs ~2,500 at AJ Bell. The difference is mostly in obscure funds that few investors actually want.
- Existing accounts / inertia. If you already have a workplace pension or other product with HL, consolidation simplicity may outweigh fee differences.
Where AJ Bell wins
- Fees on funds. 0.25% vs 0.45% is a 0.20% gap — significant over decades. On £100k held for 30 years at 7% growth, AJ Bell saves ~£35,000 in cumulative fees vs HL.
- Dealing costs. £5 vs £11.95 on standard trades is meaningful for active investors. Regular savings plans (£1.50 vs £5.95) are dramatically cheaper at AJ Bell.
- SIPP fee structure. Same 0.25% cap on shares/ETFs (£120/yr) applies to AJ Bell SIPP — vs HL’s £200/yr SIPP cap.
- FX fees at scale. 0.50% on large US share purchases vs HL’s 0.25-1.00% staircase. AJ Bell is simpler.
- Junior ISA fee. AJ Bell Junior ISA caps at 0.25% with £25 minimum — competitive.
Decision framework
Choose AJ Bell if you...
Best for: ...hold mostly funds, value lower fees over premium polish, invest via regular monthly contributions, hold <£250k.
AJ Bell’s 0.25% fund fee + £5 dealing is the cheapest of the big platforms in this segment. The £1.50 regular savings dealing fee is especially good for monthly investors.
Choose Hargreaves Lansdown if you...
Best for: ...want premium research, prefer human customer service, are paying for confidence over savings, or are already deeply embedded in the HL ecosystem.
HL’s research and app are objectively better. The £45/yr ETF cap means the headline 0.45% fee is irrelevant for ETF-only investors at any size.
Either works equally if you...
Best for: ...hold £250k+ of mostly ETFs and trade infrequently.
Both cap ETF fees at ~£42-£45/yr. The cost gap at this profile is under £50/yr. Service and platform polish dominate the decision.
Both platforms allow free transfers in and out. Transferring takes 4-8 weeks via in-specie transfer (you don’t need to sell), preserving the ISA wrapper.
Compare wrappers, not platforms
Before picking a platform, decide whether ISA or SIPP makes more sense for your situation. The ISA vs pension comparison runs through the maths.
Compare ISA vs pension →How we built this comparison
Fee and feature data is taken directly from each provider’s published website as of 2026-05-12. UK Tax Drag has no commercial relationship with any platform listed — no affiliate links, no referral codes, no sponsored content. The methodology page documents our comparison standards. The independence page confirms our funding model.
This page is educational only and is not regulated financial advice. The choice of platform depends on your personal circumstances, investment style, and balance. Always read the provider’s key facts document and verify the latest fees before opening an account. Past performance is not a guide to future returns. Investments can fall as well as rise.
Related
- Best ISA platform 2026/27 — wider comparison across 8 UK platforms
- Best SIPP platform 2026/27 — pension-focused comparison
- UK ETF library — fund selection guide
- ISA vs pension calculator — tax-wrapper decision
- All investing content
- All calculators
How UK Tax Drag holds itself to account
Every page is reviewed against the editorial standards, written from primary sources, sourced openly, and corrected publicly. No affiliate revenue. No sponsored content. No paid placements.